Thanks for the explanation. I think the biggest problem I have with the versatile B trait as a solution is that it devalues the Hand-cannon and its modular trait.
Percussive as a trait! It sounds like you've been thinking about this a while (as if that weren't obvious). I'd only been able to come up with High-Impact and didn't like the fact it was two words.
I was toying with the idea of having a trait, and I'll mention it in case other think it might be an interesting option. (I'll use Percussive since you mentioned it, and it is one word) With the Percussive trait, that means that if exceed the number neede to hit by a given amount (lets just say 4, but I also toyed with 2) the strike will include bludgeoning damage. It would specify to use bludgeoning resistance/immunity if favorable for the attacker over piercing, using the weakness between piercing and bludgeoning that is more favorable for the attacker. Yes this is theoretically more work on the GM, unless they player calculates it for the GM, and they apply the appropriate one. Also, as mentioned about blood effects, and admit that it probably is too much of a detail, but I'd say that the damage should still trigger any effects caused by piercing damage, even if it got converted in the end into bludgeoning damage. (and trigger bludgeoning damage effects if such damage was done)
You say that using such a weapon would devalue knowledge checks, but if you have to count on a stronger hit to do the higher damage, it might actually prompt them, if they got a strong hit on a foe they didn't seem to be doing much damage to, and the near crit seemed to work much better. They might verify it with a knowledge check. (or they might risk a melee strike with B weapon, or switch to a hand cannon)
This method (depending on how much you have to exceed your hit), actually helps me some with the disconnect that striking a skeleton is easier with a gun. The situation where you still can shoot the center of the chest, and still miss hitting a thing. Personally, I'd imagine I'd have trouble hitting a skeleton in the skull to shatter it unless I remained very calm. (I can actually get a pretty close spread if I shoot slowly and calmly, even though no matter how much I try to adjust, I always drift a couple inches from where I try to target)
Having a Percussive trait actually leaves the Hand-cannon's ability to have an always bludgeoning blast more useful, for instanced, such as when trying to strike skeletons. (and hand cannon could mention that reloading can also count as an action to change the modular state of the hand-cannon)
edit: Ok, someone might be considered too powerful, but what if any hit exceeding the AC by 4 converts the damage to Force damage [or it open up the option of converting it to force damage] instead of Bludgeoning damage. Last I knew, force was rarely a resistance. [I think the inventor might have it as an option to have armor with force resistance]
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Weapons with this trait deal both bludgeoning and piercing damage. If the target has abilities that affect both types of damage, the player picks the order of operation. If the target is immune to only one of those types of damage, instead halve the damage."
Michael Sayre already gave his feedback, so I'll only add that I'm imagining a fighter sitting down on the battlefield, whispering to himself "and carry the three..."
I doubt I'll get much buy in on my Fierce trait proposal, so I'll spare the thread that particular suggestion. But it occurs to me that if versatile is unsatisfying because you make the decision at the point of fire, why not put the versatile trait onto the reload action?
I wouldn't go so far as to say "give different ammo pools", but moving the versatile decision to the reload action would give some of that feeling of selecting from a set of different ammo types while not adding unsatisfying complexity. Though if you did want to add ammo pools, it occurs to me that you could have that versatile trait be applied to the bullets, and have different kinds of versatile. Like alchemical bullets that are versatile (fire), or a Magus that can fire versatile (force), a Redeemer with a shotgun full of versatile (good).
Hmm. The more I think about this, the more moving versatile to the bullets is growing on me. They would effectively be a consumable/talisman that you're able to apply to any kind of reloadable weapon. I mentioned that I wanted Alchemists to wind up with a research field dedicated to ammo; this would be a way to accomplish that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Michael Sayre already gave his feedback, so I'll only add that I'm imagining a fighter sitting down on the battlefield, whispering to himself "and carry the three..."
*shrug* I'll have to take your word for it. The vast majority of the time when people say they are worried about the "cognitive load" of something, I don't see it.
The more I think about this, the more moving versatile to the bullets is growing on me.
It's an improvement over versatile at least. It still stretches credulity to have armor piercing [P damage] or explosive [B damage] bullets for a flintlock: we're pretty much dealing with a lump of lead.
No type of gun with that trait ever works underwater
Are guns meant to work underwater? I know they needed special magic to do so in PF1 and we're still talking about black powder in the playtest descriptions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bullets just deliver bludgeoning damage with such force and precision that the effect on soft tissue is to punch right through. Shoot someone in the knee, though, and their kneecap shattering like it's just been smashed with a pneumatic sledgehammer will be far more serious than the accompanying puncture wound(s). Similarly with most joints or "hard" areas of the body; the impact damage caused is going to be significantly worse than the piercing damage unless a vital organ or artery is struck. Anecdotally, I got to experience a lot of this second-hand last year after my brother was shot in a home invasion; the blood and tissue damage from the entry wound were shocking and upsetting, but the x-rays of what the bullet did when it bounced around inside his pelvis shattering one hip before damaging and lodging in the other were much more serious and horrifying.
I'm sorry for your brother, I hope he heals well from his wound.
Still, I strongly disagree with your vision of bullets. What you are describing is piercing damage. Yes, the bones and tissues on the wake of a spear tip are all shattered and such. Still, if the spear tip (or the bullet) doesn't pierce the flesh/armor, it doesn't do damage. Unlike a bludgeoning weapon which is not supposed to pierce anything as it's dealing concussion damage. If your hammer doesn't pierce the armor, you can still kill your target. Actually, not piercing the armor is the expected outcome, piercing the armor would be an incredible blow (or a paper armor).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Michael Sayre already gave his feedback, so I'll only add that I'm imagining a fighter sitting down on the battlefield, whispering to himself "and carry the three..."*shrug* I'll have to take your word for it. The vast majority of the time when people say they are worried about the "cognitive load" of something, I don't see it.
People can usually only comfortably hold around 5 "If...Then...Else" branches in their head at any one time, similar to how most people can only reliably count at a glance up to about 5 objects, or keep about 5 random things in their short term memory. Anything more complex than that requires either having it written down in front of them (which reduces those branches to "look down"), having at least a couple of the steps memorized into long term memory, or steps combined somehow (such as memorizing "675893" as "Sixty-seven, Fifty-eight, Ninety-three").
Some people are better at this than others, and it is something that you can practice. But on average that is the practical limit. And it isn't just my experience; this is fairly well documented in psychological studies.
Strikes already have a couple branches to them, where you have 3 outcomes depending on the attack roll and some effects that happen on a crit but not a hit and some damage effecting some enemies but not others, not to mention deciding to make the strike in the first place is its own branch. That's why most of us write down on our character sheets what dice to roll depending on our degree of success, so that we can just look down instead of figuring it out each time. The Fatal trait is inherently more complex as well; when your crit is just double the hit you can simplify things by making that "Two Hits" instead of its own branch, but with fatal that doesn't apply.
Your proposal would add additional If..Then branches to every strike, up to 6 depending on the specific creatures immunities and resistances for the first strike and then up to 3 thereafter (since you can in theory change Order of Oper with each strike). You'd have to make those initial decisions, and then keep those decisions memorized so you can reference them every time you roll damage. That is why it is a heavy cognitive load to carry.
Edit: To be 100% clear, the If...Then branches you'd have to keep memorized are: What order to apply the damage, how to split that damage once you've rolled it, and what happens to each damage type. And that's assuming only 1 type has resistance/weakness/immunity; if both have effects you have to keep a branch for each type. Compare that to versatile, where you just to decide what damage type to make, or my fierce trait, where THAT is predecided but you have to figure out how each damage type is affected.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually pro ammo multiple ammo types for a totally different reason: scatter weapons. Now, I LOVE the scatter property, but it being compulsory does make the blunderbuss fall into video game shotgun territory, where they hurt a lot up close, but are totally useless at range, which isn't true irl. Shotguns irl have different types of ammo, and I'd personally like to see stuff like buckshot, which wouldn't scatter (and thus let you shoot out multiple range increments) but increases the damage die size by 1, or maybe splashes in target's square only, to represent a tighter cluster, or dragon fire rounds that deal burning damage instead of piercing (though I could also see room for this to be consumable alchemical ammo that bletchs out a full blown aoe attack, too)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Special types of ammo are always a fun thing to have for any loaded weapon, in my opinion. I love having enchanted bullets in Starfinder for different enemies, and I love handing out Bane arrows as loot in Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People can usually only comfortably hold around 5 "If...Then...Else" branches in their head at any one time, similar to how most people can only reliably count at a glance up to about 5 objects, or keep about 5 random things in their short term memory.
Oh, I understand the concept but for me it's like trying to explain what purple looks like [I'm color blind and can't see that color]. On this subject, I can stuff an entire book into my short term memory and reliably answer questions about it for about a week: after that I lose the finer details. Same with math: I can do mental calculation of higher math. Can't do rain man object counting though. ;)
This is why I'm not good at judging what "is a heavy cognitive load to carry". What you described about my proposal is something I glance at and my mind just spits out so it's hard for me to see through the eyes of someone who's brain works differently. I just don't really notice how many steps there are in things like this most times.
Quite late to this party, but I have a couple of pennies to add.
I can see two clean solutions here; a new trait or a new damage type.
The Percussive trait mentioned earlier in the thread seems like a perfectly good solution. I don't think the "cognitive load" is too much of a trade off. If you want to use a special type of weapon, then you should expect a special set of rules to apply IMO.
Either way, I'd rename it "Concussive" since by definition it conveys an impact of considerable force and doesn't have a musical connotation.
Another possibility is to add a new physical damage type:
"Concussive damage is dealt by blunt projectiles fired at piercingly high speeds."
PROS: All the complexity of having to figure out exactly when it should be piercing or bludgeoning is entirely bypassed.
CONS: Nothing in the current published materials has immunity, resistance, or weakness to this damage type.
I think despite the possible need to reprint the bestiary and some of the APs (which is almost an inevitability this early in the life of 2e) it would be worth it to give firearms their own space to live in as a unique form of weaponry.
The Percussive trait mentioned earlier in the thread seems like a perfectly good solution. I don't think the "cognitive load" is too much of a trade off. If you want to use a special type of weapon, then you should expect a special set of rules to apply IMO.
Guns already have additional rules and downsides no other weapon has (specifically the alchemical nature of their ammo and misfire rules, plus other traits they're potentially going to add*). Adding more rules to the damage just to be complex adds little.
Versatile works well enough for me, though as I said I'd prefer it on the ammo instead of the gun, in part to justify ammo being an alchemical consumable rather than a common item.
*for reference
As we go through and develop all of the firearms, we’ll consider opportunities to explore these options: such as extending the range of a few different weapons, potentially introducing new traits that do a better job of telling the story of a firearm, and addressing small oversights in the playtest options.
Agree, I don't see much sense in firearms have versatile instead have modular and changes their damage type based on their bullets. IMO this already enough to solve the question of damage type without creating an unnecessary strangeness.
I also agree that the firearms have too much additional complex mechanics. IMO even the current misfire rule is overkilling. If misfires was put as a mere trait to feats it was be good enough.
@AnimatedPaper: I don't think the new trait proposed adds a significant amount of complexity. Plus there is room to reduce complexity in other areas.
Even if versatile was added to bullets, it makes no more sense than on the guns themselves. They are just fundamentally different. That's why I think just adding a new damage type is warranted and would be a more fitting solution.
@YuriP: I don't think modular makes any more sense than versatile does on ammo. The problem is that modular and versatile ARE unnecessary strangeness.
I do agree that the misfire rules are needlessly complicated. I'd drop all the maintenance hubbub. A flat check with a DC of 1 or 2 after a critical failure or when called by a specific ability seems more than good enough.
I say this primarily because I've spoken to a lot of groups that do black powder demonstrations. From what I've been told and witnessed for myself there is always a chance that a flintlock weapon will misfire regardless of maintenance. Or rather, maintaining your weapon before use is absolutely necessary and even then they may fail catastrophically anyway.
I do agree that the misfire rules are needlessly complicated. I'd drop all the maintenance hubbub. A flat check with a DC of 1 or 2 after a critical failure or when called by a specific ability seems more than good enough.
What's the purpose of a flat check with a DC of 1?
@YuriP: I don't think modular makes any more sense than versatile does on ammo. The problem is that modular and versatile ARE unnecessary strangeness.
I have to agree with you a little. But as in real world we have different bullet types that make different damage characteristics. I think that a char have different bullet types in game is acceptable. The only thing I don't like because it is too strange is swith the gun damage type in the firearm just like it was a switch it from semi to auto.
I do agree that the misfire rules are needlessly complicated. I'd drop all the maintenance hubbub. A flat check with a DC of 1 or 2 after a critical failure or when called by a specific ability seems more than good enough.
I say this primarily because I've spoken to a lot of groups that do black powder demonstrations. From what I've been told and witnessed for myself there is always a chance that a flintlock weapon will misfire regardless of maintenance. Or rather, maintaining your weapon before use is absolutely necessary and even then they may fail catastrophically anyway.
Fair enough, even the modern firearms clunks sometimes even when clean. Is better than the idea of you have to prepare a weapon just like a wizard prepare a cantrip to use that day.
But this one more reason to increase the firearms base damage.